Building Support for Regional Sea Turtle Conservation in ASEAN and the Asian Region: Learning from the Inter- American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles

 J. Frazier

Abstract

Marine turtles are characterised by their complex life cycles. Of the seven living species, six are known to make lengthy migrations between nesting and feeding grounds, as well as to spend years, if not decades, dispersing across oceans during their development and maturation. These vast movements take individual turtles through the territorial waters of many nations, as well as onto the high seas. Hence, no single nation, no matter how thorough and advanced its conservation and management programs, can hope to provide adequate protection for these reptiles. In recent years, a number of populations have collapsed, despite thorough protection on the nesting beaches. Marine turtles are classic examples of shared resources, and only through international cooperation can these resources, as well as the habitats on which they depend be adequately conserved and managed for the good of many societies. The fledgling Inter- American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles serves as a unique example of how regional accords can be developed This paper examines the pros and cons of this hemispheric treaty, in the light of developing international accords in the ASEAN and Indian Ocean Region.

Description of the problem

The last decade has witnessed ever-greater collaboration and coordination of financial ventures on a global scale, with burgeoning commercial and political power in transnational corporations (Korten 1995, 1999). Consequently, the social and environmental effects of this process of globalisation' have received growing attention and concern with treatises that discuss profound social and political disruption, and even the collapse of societies (e.g. Utting 1995, Bodley 1999). As this rapidly-evolving socio-political experiment becomes swifter and more adept at creating and penetrating markets, as well as at extracting resources, the urgency to develop effective, and socially just, checks and balances soars.

Nowhere is the need for balance in international affairs more pressing than in the case of living marine resources (e.g. Talbot 1996). As many social scientists (e.g. Kent 1980a, 1989, 1997, Bailey 1985, 1988, 1989, Bailey & Jentoft 1990, Bailey et al. 1986) have explained, international negotiations and 'development' programs are focused on benefiting corporations and governments, but routinely these activities have profound negative effects on the exporting/producer countries. The damage from these actions are regularly seen on marine environments; marine organisms, particularly fisheries stocks; small- scale fishers; fishworkers and other members of coastal communities; availability of fisheries products for human consumption; and ultimately, food security. This perception is neither new nor unusual: there is ample literature which goes back decades, if not centuries (e.g. Kent 1980b, Fairlie 1995, Kurlansky 1997).

The problems involving fisheries and other living marine resources are highly complex, involving a wide diversity of professional disciplines and interests. By nature, marine issues are dynamic in space and time. Indeed, there are serious doubts that modern societies and governments have adequate knowledge, wisdom or political will to design and implement simply fisheries management procedures for protecting the exploited resources (Larkin 1977, Ludwig 1993, Ludwig et al. 1993): this is to say nothing of the more complex issues of marine conservation, social justice, and resource accessibility (Kent 1980a, 1989, 1997, Bailey 1985, 1988, 1989, Bailey & Jentoft 1990, Bailey et al. 1986, Dayton et al. 1995, Stone 1995, 1997). Add to this the convoluted, often Machiavellian, worlds of contemporary commerce and politics, and the situation becomes virtually imponderable, if not surreal (Mitroff& Bennis 1993).

Even without these immense contemporary social and political pressures, there is a tremendous need to develop measures that provide adequate protection for marine resources, particularly those that are endangered'. Moreover, when individuals of the species involved, during the normal course of their life history, occupy vast areas of the planet through migration and dispersal, the challenge is many times greater. Shared objectives, responsibilities and actions are fundamental for protecting shared resources. Sea turtles are a case in point: globally, they are recognised as being endangered, highly migratory, and valuable resources, for both material and non-material reasons (Lutz & Musick 1997, and references therein, Frazier 1999a).

A simplified scenario2 for these marine reptiles could be as follows: Eggs are laid in a nest on a beach in country 1. During the course of a nesting season, one female may lay hundreds of eggs; some of these eggs develop, a portion of which hatch, and some of those hatchlings' make it out into the open ocean, well beyond the territorial rights of any country. Some of the hatchlings survive, grow into juvenile turtles that pass through the marine territories of countries 2 and 3, finally taking up residence in coastal waters of country 4; some of these juvenile animals survive, and move on to other 'developmental habitats' in country 5; over a period of decades some of the juveniles grow into adults, finally taking up residence in country 6. Once they are fully mature and in reproductive condition, the adults migrate back to country 1, where they reproduce, completing the cycle (on average, not more than one out of every thousand eggs survives to this stage).  If they survive to complete the reproductive phase,  the adult turtles migrate to country 6, and after a period of years, they again migrate back to country 1 to breed in another season, and so on. Hence, in this scenario, anyone who, for example, collects turtle eggs on the beach in country 1, is at the same time affecting the future of this resource in five other countries, not to mention the high seas. The same can be said of exploitation of these animals during any of the other phases of their life cycle and in any of the other territories where they live during any part of their life cycle.

Problems involving direct exploitation on turtles are relatively simple to understand, for a cause and effect relationship is clearly identifiable. Indeed, there have been several reviews of the decimation of marine turtle populations in South East Asia, that were subjected to prolonged and intense egg harvest (e.g. Limpus 1994, 1995, Chan & Liew 1996). However, marine turtles are subject to many other pressures beside direct exploitation. Incidental captures in various types of fishing operations are now known to be of great consequence, apparently affecting numerous sea turtle populations in various places (e.g. NRC 1990, Wetherall et al. 1993, Camiñas & de la Sema 1995, Robins 1995, Chan & Liew 1996, Hall 1996, Williams et al. 1996, Eckert & Sarti 1997, Oruç et al. 1997, Oravetz 1999, Pandav & Choudhury 1999, Silvani et al. 1999, Witzell 1999). Other causes of mortality that can have serious impacts on sea turtles include various forms of habitat perturbation and pollution (Dayton et al. 1995, Lutcavage et al. 1997). Just as in the case of direct exploitation, if turtles are killed or disabled by incidental take, habitat perturbation or pollution in one country, this affects the turtle population in other countries through which the animals range during their lifetimes.

In short, these are shared resources, not owned by any one country, not the unique right of any single nation, nor the sole responsibility of any single state. Moreover, most species of marine turtles require decades to reach sexual maturity; hence, the effectiveness of conservation initiatives must be evaluated over the mid- to long-term. The short horizons typical of political terms of appointment and commercial ventures are totally inappropriate for meeting the basic needs of sea turtle conservation.

Aside from the specific complications which stem from the complex life histories of sea turtles, there are other basic problems which are common to contemporary conservation activities at a general level. Many efforts at resource management and biological conservation have focused on technological re- spouses (Ausubel 1996), attempts at 'quick fixes' by modifying something in the genetics, physiology or life history of the organism: e.g. genetic makeup, hormones, predators, parasites or ecological competitors. Recently, 'ecosystem management' has become more fashionable, involving some form of manipulation to the environment. Euphemistically called management,' these actions are often a form of tinkering, at best making do with limited information, and still less understanding, about ecological processes (Frazier 1997a). Routinely, these activities are manifestations of the base human penchant to control. The list of failures in resource management' is long and varied, and one of the explanations is that until very recently humans and human institutions have been virtually ignored by western conservationists and resource managers (e.g. Bookchin 1994, McDonnel & Pickett 1993, Vandermeer & Perfecto 1995, Ausubel 1996, Talbot 1996, Frazier 1997a, Ghimire & Pimbert 1997). Remarkably, although research and conservation activities in marine environments generally pall beside work done in terrestrial settings, marine issues, particularly fishieries, provide a lion's share of examples of failed attempts at resource management (e.g. Larkin 1977, McGoodwin 1990, Ludwig et al. 1993, Dayton et al. 1995, Talbot 1996, Stone 1997, Wigan 1998).

The response

This may seem like an extra-ordinary and impossible situation. Yet, it is on these facts that the sea turtle conservationist is nurtured and weaned. The question is: How to respond? Clearly, several considerations are fundamental for developing adequate measures for the conservation of sea turtles and their habitats:

  • Spatial scale - large expanses of the earth need protection, encompassing the jurisdictional areas of numerous states as well as global commons on the high seas;
  • Environmental diversity - varied environments, from terrestrial to open ocean need vigilance and protection;
  • Temporal scale - time scales of decades are needed to implement actions and to evaluate effects;
  • Social factors - human activities, attitudes, needs, perceptions, traditions, and institutions exert major influences on environments and resources, and these elements must be adequately incorporated into any conservation and resource management planning, action and evaluation;
  • Dynamic instability - the ability to predict accurately is poor, and because the above factors interact, uncertainty is the rule.

In summary, actions for marine turtle conservation must contemplate vast and diverse areas, embracing many nations, as well as the high seas; the procedures must have the stability to be functional for decades, but the flexibility to respond to change as well as to alter course appropriate to new information and understanding. The human element, rather than being negated, or pushed aside, must be included as a central and major component. While not encouraged, mistakes are to be expected, and must be identified and corrected as effectively as possible.

In other words, the measures must be multi-national, negotiated accords on which actions of common interest are decided upon by consensus; the best possible information together with the most effective decision-making and evaluation processes must be fully incorporated. Finally, there must be mechanisms for motivating compliance of each party with mutual accords, and holding offenders accountable. These characteristics outline the essence of a well-conceived and constructed international agreement.

The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles: A case study

General background and comparisons: There have been several accounts on the development of The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC), explaining how it was progressing (Donnelly 1995, 1996, Somma 1996) and how the final version of the text was arrived at, and made ready for signing, and subsequent ratification (Frazier 1997b, Naro-Maciel 1998). A website, http//:www.seaturtles.org/iac/, was also developed specifically for disseminating information and promoting support (Anon 1998). More recently, an update has described the events that occurred just before the period for signing closed, notably an international effort that resulted in six countries signing during the last month, the same number that had signed in the previous two-year period (Frazier 1999b)3. Unfortunately, other than the brief update by Somma (1996), there seems to be no public document written by any official member of the delegations that describes and analyses the events involved in the development of the treaty.

During the 2nd ASEAN Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, three authors (including the present) have focused, to varying degrees, on the IAC. Gibbons-Fly (this volume) presented a clear description of the structure and function of the IAC, pointing out some of the more important facets in relation to problems regarding sea turtle conservation in the Western Hemisphere. These include: measures to reduce both direct exploitation and fisheries-related mortality on sea turtles; protection and restoration of habitat; and promotion of scientific research and environmental education on sea turtles and their habitats. He explained that there is provision in the IAC for subsistence take of marine turtles, and emphasised the importance of both the Scientific Committee and the Consultative Committee, stating that they 'provide the basis and framework for the lion's share of the work of the Convention.' Gibbons-Fly characterised the most prominent aspects of IAC with five concepts: cooperation - Parties of the Convention work together for common goals; responsibility - each Party is to implement agreed measures within its jurisdictional area; accountability - each Party must monitor actions and correspond with other Parties; transparency - monitoring and reporting, as well as review by the Consultative Committee, enhance transparency; and consensus - all decisions of the Parties are taken by consensus.

Bache (this volume) evaluated the IAC in the context of the wider issue of intemational policy for dealing with bycatch. She concluded that this treaty is preferable to both eco-labeling and trade embargoes on several counts, for it: acknowledges environmental, cultural and socio-political differences between nations; encourages complimentary bi- and multi-national accords; gives great importance to scientific information; and it includes a diversity of issues related to sea turtle conservation. At the same time, she described a number of shortcomings, including several concerns that had been mentioned by Frazier (1997b): uncertainties about funding, political autonomy of the scientific committee, incorporating the concept of user pays', and representation of small-scale fishers.

Bache (this volume) also pointed out that other than shrimp trawling the IAC makes no explicit mention of major bycatch problems: other sources of fisheries-related mortality in marine turtles are thought to be substantial (e.g. Wetherall et al. 1993, Camifias & de la Serna 1995, Chan & Liew 1996, Williams et al. 1996, Eckert & Sarti 1997, Oravetz 1999, Silvani et al. 1999, Witzell 1999). Agreeing with Frazier (1997b), Bache (this volume) emphasised the uncertainty about enforcement of the IAC, but she went on to point out that the threat of a U.S. trade embargo4 may overcome this problem by acting as a stimulus to at least reduce incidental mortality in shrimp trawls (see Charnovitz 1994). The issue of enforcement of international accords is complex; Boyle (1991: 230) concluded that Community pressure remains the only real sanction for enforcing compliance...’

These different reports, evaluations and comparisons are instructive and useful, but they illuminate only part of the picture. Although there have been brief accounts of some of the happenings in the development of the IAC (Frazier 1997b, 1999b), the specific activities, processes and mechanisms that led to the finalisation of the text have been only briefly described or acknowledged. Even less generally appreciated is what took place, in different venues, during the two-year period when the treaty was open for signing, from 1 December 1996 until 31 December 1998.

After the negotiations of the treaty text finished, and it was open for signing, other activities continued. In theory, the relevant government agency in the Depositary country sent official invitations to all countries in the Americas, as well as to the three European nations that are eligible, to join. However, what went on at official, diplomatic, inter-governmental levels is, for the most part, beyond the ken of this author, and the description of events at those levels awaits the pen of someone knowledgeable of the relevant details. Notwithstanding, the behind-the-scenes activities involving a large, diverse and highly motivated community of conservationists, environmental lawyers, and sea turtle biologists was certainly no less consequential than what occurred at governmental levels. Indeed, one knowledgeable government official who played a key role in the development of the IAC has privately conceded that without the tremendous support from people outside of government, through unofficial channels, the treaty would not have advanced to where it has. It is this aspect that warrants explanation: how concerned, informed, and motivated citizens from different countries played a key role in the evolution of the treaty.

Since February 1996, sea turtle specialists from Latin America have supported the IAC (Frazier 1997b, 1999b). Yet, there was never a feeling that early drafts, or indeed the final text, were flaw-less. There was also full appreciation that the conception of the Convention was provoked by a U.S. law (Bache this volume, Frazier & Bache in press) disliked by many people in the fishing industry, as well as by others who reject unilateral measures5. Notwithstanding these defects, specialists from different countries, who live and work within their respective social and political systems, concluded that the treaty would be an overall benefit, both at national and international levels.

Formal expression of interest and support: This support for the IAC was first expressed as a consensus opinion in a resolution proposal by the Latin American sea turtle community; the proposal was subsequently accepted by a larger international group of sea turtle biologists and conservationists, during the 16th Annual Symposium on the Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, held in February 1996. The Latin American community also took the lead during the following three Annual Symposia (17th, 18th and 19th) to propose successful resolutions before the international symposium, promoting the Inter-American Convention (Frazier 1997b, 1999b, Wyneken 1997, Plotkin 1999). Additional manifestations of support from this community were resolutions in other fora, such as the Central American Regional Workshop on the Conservation of Sea Turtles (Costa Rica 1997), and the Annual General Meeting of the Caribbean Conservation Association (Dominica 1998).

Of great importance is support for the IAC that has also come from outside the community of conservationists, environmental lawyers and sea turtle biologists. On at least two occasions, the Conference of Ministers of the Latin American Organisation for Fisheries Development (OLDEPESCA) has issued resolutions promoting the IAC: in Belize, 1997 and in Peru, 1999 (Mazal 1999). The fact that this is a fisheries organisation and is constituted by representatives of governments indicates the level of support that the treaty was receiving. It would, however, be naïve to assume that the threat of U.S. shrimp embargoes unrelated to the interest in turtle conservation generated within OLDEPESCA (see Crouse 1999, Frazier & Bache in press).

A recurring theme in the resolutions promoted by the Latin American sea turtle community has been the need to disseminate information about the IAC, and to promote interest and support by relevant governmental agencies. It was in response to this objective that the website on the Inter-American Convention was created and launched in September 1998 (Anon 1998). However, a website, no matter how complete or well designed, is passive, and as such has limited impact on informing and influencing government decision-makers.

Commitment to participate: Once hundreds of 'hits,' or 'visitations,' had been registered on the website, and several hundred 'sign-ons' from throughout the region had accumulated, people began to understand more clearly the gravity of the situation. The period open for signing would soon be over. Yet, the number of Signatories was still only six, and because a minimum of eight ratifications is needed for the treaty to come into force, the IAC was in danger of sinking into a morass of international bureaucracy. Concerned about the status of the treaty, key people in the inter-American region, particularly in Latin America, began contacting each other, asking for updates and expressing concern that time was running out. Starting in late September 1998, motivated people in numerous countries made decisions to participate in more active efforts in their respective countries to increase the reach and impact of information dissemination, and also to promote government awareness of the importance of the IAC and support for it. This decision to participate in active information and lobbying campaigns had in fact been agreed upon every time that a resolution was proposed by this group during the reunions in previous years. However, as normally happens, these had essentially been well-intentioned expressions of concern made in public, but with little follow through; this new commitment was a major development, for it involved taking specific actions, and dedicating substantial amounts of time and energy to a regional effort.

Development of a network: As a result of active 'networking' in the Caribbean and Latin America, the ties between sea turtle biologists, conservationists, and environmental lawyers have been growing ever-stronger over the years. There is great similarity in language, history, culture and environment between the different nations of this region, and this clearly facilitates communication, understanding and collaboration. However, these similarities alone do not produce an efficient network, for there are still substantial differences, not only between nations, but also between compatriots, in relation to differences in disciplines, institutions and sectors of society. Various activities have been especially important in developing regional networks: multi-national training programs carried out in the region; regional meetings; collaborative bi- and multi-national projects on education and research; and regional media campaigns.

Several organised, regional initiatives have been crucial in fostering the development of networks. For example, the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network (WIDECAST) is comprised of national coordinators, together with a diverse grassroots base, from more than 30 wider Caribbean nations and territories (Trono & Salm 1999). WIDECAST has convened annual regional meetings since 1984, and since 1990 its Annual General Meeting has brought together national coordinators immediately before the Annual Symposium on the Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. In addition, each year since 1994 scores of Latin American specialists on sea turtles from a dozen or more countries have participated in an annual Latin American reunion, also held immediately before the Annual Symposium (Frazier 1999c). This reunion is the forum from which resolutions to support the IAC have been promoted over four years consecutively. The Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Medio Ambiente, AIDA, ( 'Inter-American Association for the Defence of the Environment') is a growing hemispheric association of national organisations in Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and the U.S. Comprised of environmental lawyers from each of these countries, it has formed an invaluable conduit between biologists and conservationists on the one hand, and matters involving legal and policy issues on the other. 

The network that developed, ad hoc, in response to the IAC was an informal structure of small, heterogeneous groups, but highly focused on one issue: promoting the IAC. It took much of its strength from the earlier advances of other networks. Through the years, the participants in various regional meetings and organisations, although they are not always the same people, have grown to know and understand each other's work, including the advances, problems, needs and expectations of people and institutions in neighbouring countries, as well as more widely in the region. Because the participants are not only diverse in nationality but also in educational background, experience, institutional affiliation, and professional responsibility, the groups in many ways are a microcosm of the overall region. This diversity, despite presenting some challenges to comprehension and compatibility, provided for considerable strength in the IAC network because there was great richness of experiences, as well as direct contacts with different sectors of society.

These were the necessary ingredients for an efficient network, and these features were exploited on to promote the IAC. A common interest in sea turtle conservation served as a general unifying factor, and motivation was derived from a shared concern for the fate of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, and its timely availability as an international instrument for the conservation of these shared resources.

Actions: Once a network was activated, a great deal of time and effort was put into diverse activities. These included: putting people in contact and facilitating links and communications between them, both nationally and regionally; providing the text of the IAC and basic information about it; facilitating the analysis and interpretation of the text (through the assistance of environmental lawyers in the region); soliciting and sending letters of support; determining key steps and contact people in the treaty office of the Depositary country, necessary for the official process of signing the treaty; distributing critical information on the signing process; and making travel arrangements.

Remarkably, in several instances biologists, conservationists and environmental lawyers were providing basic information on diplomatic and political processes to government civil servants. It must be appreciated that governments change and this routinely results in people occupying positions without having adequate background in all the details of what the job entails; moreover, institutional memory' is often obliterated with turnovers in personnel. Even without changes in governments or personnel, documents and information do not always move smoothly through bureaucracies: communications between ministries and departments are often imperfect. For example, in several cases, people in key government offices claimed to have no knowledge of the treaty, even though official representatives of their governments had participated in the negotiations. Hence, it was often necessary to provide information repeatedly not only to the same government or ministry, but to the same department, office or person. Clearly, this had to be done without accenting the obvious inefficiencies in the bureaucracy involved.

Throughout the entire exercise there was a pervasive spirit among network members of sharing: sharing news and information, sharing responsibilities, sharing frustrations, and sharing credits for advances and achievements. In other words, the network developed an organic structure with considerable confidence and respect between different members.

Follow-up: The intense activity of the IAC network saw fruit: between 21 December and 31 December 1998, six governments subscribed to the Convention, doubling the total number. Yet, the treaty is still not in force, and considerable work still needs to be done to ensure that it will really function as effectively as possible in reaching its stated objective: 

'to promote the protection, conservation and recovery of sea turtle populations and of the habitats on which they depend, based on the best available scientific evidence, taking into account the environmental, socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the Parties.' (Article II)

To this end, after the IAC was closed to further signatures at the end of 1998, several groups of Latin Americans, including conservationists, environmental lawyers and sea turtle biologists, have met to discuss the future of the treaty. Several basic questions have been deliberated, including: What organisation will serve as Secretariat, if indeed the Parties decide to have one? How will the rules of procedure be derived, and on what will they focus? How will the Scientific and Consultative Committees be established, and what will their respective rules of procedure be? What mechanisms for funding will be instigated to cover the various costs involved in implementing the treaty? Clearly, there are as yet no answers to these questions, but the fact that there is awareness and interest in providing follow-up indicates that the process of participation has become an important part in the development of this international instrument.

Discussion

It must be understood that although scientific information, and even scientists, were intimately involved in the inter-governmental negotiations, the fmalisation of the treaty text, and the promotion of the IAC, the over-all process was a social phenomenon, carried out within a political context. In other words, in these situations the scientists and conservationists, although using their specialised capacity and understanding with biological problems, were operating within a political framework, not the system usual to scientists. While not abandoning or losing their roles as scientists and conservationists, they became important players in a political process. Unlike the usual routine, where scientists suddenly find themselves adrift in the turbulent waters of politics (Pulliam 1998), the initiative in this case had been to knowingly venture into this poorly known environment, but with clear objectives in view, and useful tools in hand.

To some people, particularly in academia, the concepts of 'advocacy' and 'lobby' are anathema, treated as taboos (Frazier 1 997a). Yet, participation in policy development is both a right and a responsibility in democratic societies (the twin sisters of democracy are liberty and responsibility, although the later is rarely recognised). Some conservation biologists have spoken out on the need for scientists to become more aware of, and involved with, policy issues (e.g. Frazier 1994, Meffe & Viederman 1995), yet many leading scientists are uneasy at best in these situations (Pulliam 1998, Marsh 1999). Generations of social and policy annalists have explained that publicity and public pressure are essential for developing and maintaining accountability in public institutions (e.g. Boyle 1991), indeed, there are cases where public outcry has resulted in the rapid enactment of stringent fisheries management measures (Oravetz 1999). Hence, those who have participated and invested in policy development may easily conclude that any sector of society, no matter how erudite, which disowns its responsibilities in matters of public participation, is by the same logic abdicating its rights to be heard and considered as the process evolves.

It is important to emphasise that the motivation in activating and collaborating with the Latin American network that successfully lobbied for the IAC did not stem from interests in expanding commercial gain, material remuneration or increased political power, factors which are behind more and more of today's activities, even those which are reputedly for biological conservation. Hence, the members of the network shared a common goal, and were not participating as a means to capitalise on opportunities for personal interests. Clearly, networks can form and function for many reasons, but when members hold personal agendas at a level equal to, or higher than, the common agenda, the organisation's efficiency and stability will be insecure.

The nations of the Indian Ocean basin are numerous and remarkably diverse in culture, language, religion, history, political structure, economic development and environment. This clearly complicates communication, comprehension, and coordination, to say nothing of the formation of working groups and networks. A major challenge, which derives from the great heterogeneity of this region, is nurturing procedures and mechanisms that promote the fullest possible participation in the development of regional accords. Some states and organisations in the region are world leaders in marine conservation in general, as well as marine turtle biology and conservation in particular. In contrast, other states and organisations have, for diverse reasons, been isolated and are in urgent need of learning and benefiting from the advances made by their neighbours (Trono & Salm 1999). The integration of all concerned parties, despite their level of awareness or expertise, is a critical component for true collaboration, and the procedures developed must respond adequately to these diverse needs. The exercise could be envisaged as a special form of community-based conservation, in which the 'community,' rather than being composed of marginalized fishers, is instead composed of representatives of government and other interested sectors (Frazier 1999a).

Nonetheless, major advancements have already been made in the region. Among others, these include the International Conference on Indian Ocean Studies, Perth, Australia, 5-12 December 1984 (Bonnet 1984); First ASEAN Symposium-Workshop on Marine Turtle Conservation, Manila, Philippines, 6- 10 December 1993 (Nacu et al. 1994); the Western Indian Ocean Training Workshop and Strategic Planning Session on Sea Turtles, Sodwana Bay, South Africa, 12-18 November 1995 (Humphrey & Salm 1996, IUCN 1996, Trono & Salm 1999); the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia, Jember, East Java, Indonesia, 18-22 November 1996 (Noor et al. 1997); the Western Indian Ocean Turtle Excluder Device Workshop, Mombasa, Kenya, 27-31 January 1997 (Wamukoya & Salm 1998), the Northern Indian Ocean Training Workshop and Strategic Planning Session on Sea Turtles, Bhubaneshwar, India, February 1997 (IUCN in press, Trono & Salm 1999), and of course the Second ASEAN Symposium and Workshop. Products from these meetings include the Proposed ASEAN Regional Marine Turtle Conservation Program (Nacu et al. 1994); the Sodwana Declaration (IUCN 1996); the Orissa Declaration; and the most recent Sabah Declaration (this volume): all of which explicitly promote collaboration throughout the region, addressing different levels and diverse tasks. There have also been several regional training sessions, particularly in ASEAN countries, which have been invaluable in capacity building, standardisation of methodologies and network development.

Of tremendous importance are multi-lateral accords that are now in place. Palma & Trono (1998) and Trono & Salm (1999) described several of the developments in the South East Asian region. The ASEAN Working Group for Nature Conservation (AWGNC) has dealt with marine turtle issues; and it was planned to have a specific ASEAN Marine Turtle Specialist Network (AMTSN) under the AWGNC. However, with the high profile political pressures arising form the WTO shrimp-turtle dispute (Howse 1998, WTO 1998, Berger 1999, Crouse 1999, Quresti 1999, Sam 1999, Shaffer 1999, Simmos 1999, Frazier & Bache in press), the ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF) took control of issues related to sea turtles.

There is concern in some quarters that this change in administrative charge was a response to a political agenda focused on shrimp exports and not an expression of real interest' in conservation of shared resources. Hence, there is confusion if there are now two agendas within the ASEAN bureaucracy for addressing sea turtle issues, and if so, how this will be resolved. The First ASEAN Symposium-Workshop produced a very thorough Proposed ASEAN Regional Marine Turtle Conservation Program (Nacu et al. 1994), and if this regional strategy can be rehabilitated in a timely manner it will have great value in advancing cooperative mechanisms for the conservation of sea turtles and their habitats.

There have also been several French initiatives in the western Indian Ocean to promote regional cooperation in marine turtle research and conservation. These have been focused on the francophone western Indian Ocean, with French overseas territories and ex-colonies, but details of the advancements in the development of regional collaboration are not at hand.

One of the most promising cooperative arrangements for sea turtles, not only in the region but also globally, is the Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area (TIHPA). The first and only trans-frontier protected area for marine turtles, TIHPA came to life in May 1997 when the Governments of Malaysia and Philippines signed a Memorandum of Understanding (Trono & Salm 1999, see Limpus 1985 for the first proposal). This was quickly recognised as a major achievement, and in the same year the prestigious J. Paul Getty Wildlife Conservation Award was presented to two organisations because of their role in the creation of TIHPA: the Pawikan Conservation Project, Philippines and Sabah Parks, Malaysia (Projecto TAMAR in Brazil also shared the Getty Award in 1997, Anon 1997). TIHPA's Joint Management Committee (JMC) has met three times, and the Joint Technical Working Group (JTWG) has met twice (Anon 1999a, 1999b). Having participated as an observer in both types of meetings, it is clear to this author that there is an indelible desire by both Parties to develop and strengthen collaborative conservation activities. This occurs despite higher level diplomatic sensitivities' (viz, strained bilateral relations) which under usual conditions would overshadow TIHPA and offset the advances that have been made (Trono & Salm 1999). In other words, in TIHPA a highly functional bi-lateral organisation has been established and nurtured; hopefully, this can be expanded upon, duplicated with other players in other areas and used as a general model more widely.

Conclusions

Clearly, there are several initiatives for collaboration specific to the Indian Ocean region. In addressing the on-going process of promoting a multi-lateral accord for sea turtle conservation in the Indian Ocean, Bache (this volume) reported that there had been a tendency to focus on an independent, or standalone, treaty, such as the IAC. However, she favoured working within the context of the Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS, or Bonn Convention), arguing that despite its former reputation of being a paper 'convention' and having relatively few member states in the region, it has clear benefits such as infrastructure, financial and secretariat support. As Bache explained, there is great flexibility in the 'Agreements' for specific species that can be developed under the CMS framework, for these can freely include any 'range state' whether or not it is a Party to the Bonn Convention (Hykle 1999). In this light, there have been formal recommendations (Frazier 1998) that the CMS play a more active role in promoting regional collaboration in sea turtle conservation.

Although the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) is marginally outside the immediate area under consideration, it also provides support for the development of cooperative accords in the Indian Ocean. The general structure and mechanisms of the overall Program, as well as the more specific characteristics of its Regional Marine Turtle Management Program (RMTMP) serve as useful examples that can be modified and copied (Hykle 1999, Trono & Salm 1999, McNee, this volume). Moreover, the RMTMP involves some of the same players in the adjoining Indian Ocean, so the cooperation nurtured in one forum should support the other.

There are many other examples of regional collaboration and international treaties, relevant to an Indian Ocean agreement for sea turtles (Hykle 1999, Trono & Salm 1999). In fact, there are many international instruments and examples that serve as underpinnings for the conservation of sea turtles and their habitats (Frazier 1998, Hykle 1999), and it is fundamental that accords negotiated for the Indian Ocean, or anywhere else, build on these larger, established treaties. The negotiation of the JAC, and particularly the input from scientists and conservationists during the final phases, did just that: acknowledge and build on important precedents in international marine conservation.

Some authors have advised that the development of multilateral cooperation should use a 'functionalist approach', 'avoiding potential obstacles, such as geopolitics, tariffs, sovereignty, and national security' (Trono & Salm 1999). This is, however, a delicate matter, for the 'potential obstacles' that are avoided will frequently be at the roots from which derive the attitudes and motivations intimately involved in the negotiations, as well as in future compliance with any accords reached. Negotiators must be aware of, and sensitive to, such fundamental concerns, and while using a functionalist approach, they must ensure that the procedures developed will be resilient to underlying issues which have not been specifically dealt with (viz. 'avoided') in the agreement. In the end, it is the deep commercial, cultural, historical, and political issues that are customarily the most powerful driving forces. For example, it is remarkable that recent reports of TED testing in Southeast Asian countries begin with descriptions of the U.S. shrimp embargo and tie the success of TED programs primarily to avoiding the embargo, not to bycatch reduction (e.g. Chokessanguan 1999, in press, Dickson 1999). Evidently, the response of the AMAF in relation to trade issues and sea turtle conservation is not unlike that shown by OLDEPESCA in the western hemisphere. Hence, even if the AMAF, because of its commercial/political priorities, does not relinquish control of sea turtle issues, the end result, if properly guided and balanced, could be useful for promoting conservation activities.

Howbeit, the history of the development of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles serves as an important case study. It shows clearly the importance of attaining support from a wide diversity of people, including conservationists, environmental lawyers and private citizens outside government, as well as government officers. It also emphasises the value of professionals, who normally operate apart from political process, dedicating time to make their opinions heard, and explain their concerns: i.e., it at tests the effort and participation needed to make democracy function. Based on the history of the Inter-American Convention, several specific points bear attention in the development of an Indian Ocean/Asean accord:

1.          Key people and institutions must be identified for the roles that they can play most effectively: information gathering, preparation, dissemination, scientific and technical advice, political contacts, governmental contacts, etc.

2.                   Basic and critical information must be compiled, organised, synthesised and prepared.

3.                   The information must be disseminated, often repeatedly and through various media.

4.                   Scientists and other professionals must make an effort to participate and be included on delegations and in other deliberations.

5.                   Environmental lawyers, policy experts, and other specialists outside of biology must be consulted and incorporated into the working groups.

6.                   Government specialists must inform and explain the importance of situation, and its relevance to national interests and priorities, to higher levels in bureaucracy.

7.                   NGOs must develop campaigns to compile and disseminate information and lobby government at various levels.

8.                   Leaders in each country, independent of their institutional affiliation, must promote and maintain communication networks, at local, national, regional and international levels.

9.                   It is never too late to get involved, but the sooner the better, for waiting until the last minute greatly complicates the work.

10.               Full credit and responsibility for the achievements must be shared among the various players.

11.               Perseverance must be tempered with patience, and motivation, with integrity and respect.

Finally, it must be appreciated that even with the best of intentions, the most efficient planning, the most experienced negotiators, and lavish funding, no negotiated accord will ever be perfect.

Their development is always liable to 'conceptual patches', vestiges of earlier drafts, and other imperfections. Nevertheless, whatever instrument is developed for the Indian Ocean, by whatever mechanisms, it is clear is that neither human society nor sea turtles can afford another Ngatik Massacre6.

Acknowledgements

Participation in the 2nd ASEAN Symposium was made possible by generous support from the Coastal Resources Management Program, Philippines (CRMP/USAID); the Symposium organisers and support group supplied efficient, generous and friendly assistance. Valuable comments on earlier drafts were provided by Sali Bache, Tim Bagley, Anna Cederstav, Marydele Donnelly, Karen Eckert, Hedelvy Guada, George Kent, Carlos Mazal, Patrick Opay, and Joel Palma.

References

Anon., 1997. Three turtle conservation groups win conservation prize. Marine Turtle Newsletter 78: 27

Anon., 1998. Website for The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 82: 19.

Anon., 1999a. Second Meeting of the Joint Technical Working Group, Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area. Marine Turtle Newsletter 83: 16.

Anon., 1999b. Third Meeting of the Malaysia-Philippines Joint Management Committee for the Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area. Marine Turtle Newsletter 86: 15.

Ausubel, J.H., 1996. Can technology spare the earth? American Scientist 84: 166-178.

Bache, S.J., (this volume). In search of a policy formula for marine turtle conservation in the South East Asian and Indian ocean region. In: Sea Turtle of the lndo-Pacific (N. Pilcher & G. Ismail, eds.)

Bailey, C., 1985. The blue revolution: the impact of technological innovation on Third- World fisheries. The Rural Sociologist 5(4): 259-266.

Bailey, C., 1988. The political economy of fisheries development in the Third World. Agricultural and Human Values 5(1&2): 35-48.

Bailey, C., 1989. Social issues in Third World fisheries development. In: J.S. Thomas, L. Maril and E.P. Durrenberger (eds.) Marine Resource Utilization: A Conference on Social Science Issues. University of South Alabama Publication Services; Mobile, Alabama: 137-143.

Bailey, C., D. Cycon & M. Morris, 1986. Fisheries development in the Third World: The role of International agencies. World Development. 14(10/11): 1269-1275.

Bailey, C. & S. Jentoft, 1990. Hard choices in fisheries development. Marine Policy 14(4): 333-344.

Baskin, Y., 1997. The Work of Nature: How the Diversity of Life Sustains Us. Earthscan; Washington, D.C. 288 pp.

Berger, J.R., 1999. Unilateral trade measures to conserve the world's living resources: An environmental breakthrough for the GA'VF in the WTO sea turtle case. Colombia Journal of Environmental Law 24(2): 355-411.

Bodley, J.H., 1999. Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States and the Global System (3rd ed). Mayfield Publishing Co.; Mountain View, California. xv ± 490 pp.

Bonnet, B., 1984. La situation des populations de tortues marines dans les îles du Sudouest de l'Océan Indien: exploitation traditionnelle, protection, ranching ou farming. 1C.I.O.S. II, International Conference on Indian Ocean Studies, Perth (W.A.), Australia, 5-12 December 1984, 1-19.

Bookchin, M., 1994. Which way for the Ecology Movement? AK Press, San Francisco, California. 75 pp.

Boyle, A.E., 1991. Saving the world? Implementation and enforcement of international environmental law through international institutions. Journal of Environmental Law 3(2): 229-245.

Camiñas, J.A. & J.M. de la Serna, 1995. The loggerhead distribution in the western Mediterranean Sea as deduced from captures by the Spanish long line fishery. In: Llorente et al., (eds.) Scientia Herpetologica 1995: 316-323.

Charnovitz, S., 1994. Environmental trade sanctions and the GAIT: An analysis of the Pelly Amendment on foreign environmental practices. American University Journal International Law and Policy

Chokessanguan, B., 1999. Introduction of TEDs in Asia. In: FAO - Papers Presented at the Expert Consultation on Sustainable Fishing Technologies and Practices. St. John's, Newfoundland. Canada. 1-6 March 1998. FAO Fisheries Report No. 588. Supplement.

Chokessanguan, B., in press. The implementation on the use of TEDs and current research in Southeast Asia. In: Proceedings of the SEAFDEC workshop on sea turtles. Kuala Terennganu, Malaysia. July 1999.

Chan, Eng-Heng & H-C. Liew, 1996. Decline of the leatherback population in Terengganu, Malaysia, 1956-1995. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2): 196-203.

Costanza, R.R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton & M van den Belt, 1997.The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Crouse, D., 1999. Guest editorial: The WTO shrimp/turtle case. Marine Turtle Newsletter 83: 1-3.

Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Earthscan; Washington, D.C. 416pp.

Dayton, P.K., S.F. Thrush, M.T. Agardy & R.J. Hofman, 1995. Environmental efects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 5: 205- 232.

Dickson, J.O., R.V. Ramiscal, B.D. Magno, N. Lamarca, M. Chiuco & A. Santiago III, 1999. Experiments of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in Manila Bay. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. 11 pp.

Donnelly, M., 1995. Western Hemisphere sea turtle treaty negotiations. Marine Turtle Newsletter 70: 7-9.

Donnelly, M., 1996. The evolution of the Western Hemisphere sea turtle treaty. Marine Turtle Newsletter 73: 18-20.

Eckert, S.A. & L. Sarti M., 1997. Distant fisheries implicated in the loss of the world's largest leatherback nesting population. Marine Turtle Newsletter 78: 2-7.

Fairlie, S. (ed.), 1995. Overfishing: Its causes and consequences. The Ecologist 25(2/3): 41-127.

Frazier, J., 1994. Conserving sea turtles and other natural resources: What Ferdinand Marcos and Manuel Noriega can teach us. In: B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (compilers). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Southeast Fisheries Centre, Miami, Horida. NMFS-SEFSC-341: 60-63

Frazier, J., 1997a. Sustainable Development: Modern Elixir or Sack Dress? Environmental Conservation 24(2): 182-193.

Frazier, J., 1997b. Guest editorial: Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 78: 7-13.

Frazier, J., 1998. Recommendations on future CMS Activities for Marine Turtle Conservation. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Eighth Meeting of the CMS Scientific Council; CMS/ScC.8/Doc. 10. 16pp +3 Annexes.

Frazier, J., l999a. Community Based Conservation. In: K.L. Eckert, K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly. (eds.) Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Publication No.4:15-18.

Frazier, J., 1999b. Guest editorial: Update on the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 84: 1-3.

Frazier, J., l999c. VI Reunion of sea turtle specialists in Latin America (26th February - lst March 1999). Marine Turtle Newsletter 85: 13-14.

Frazier, J. & S.J. Bache, in press. Sea turtle conservation and the "big stick" : the effects of unilateral us embargoes on international fishing activities. In: A. Mosier and A. Foley (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Honda. NOAA Tec. Mem. NMFS-SEFRC.

Ghimire, KB. & M.P. Pimbert (eds.), 1997. Social Change and Conservation. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development; Earthscan; London. viii + 342pp.

Gibbons-Fly, W., (this volume). The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. In: Sea Turtles of the Indo-Pacific (N. Pilcher & G. Is- mail, eds.).

Hall, M.A., 1996. On bycatches. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6: 319-352.

Heywood, V.H., I. Baste & K.A. Gardner, 1995. Introduction. In: V.H. Heywood (exc. ed.) Global Biodiversity Assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 5-19.

Howse, R., 1998. The Turtles Panel: Another environmental disaster in Geneva. Journal of World Trade 32(5): 73-100.

Hykle, D., 1999. International conservation treaties. In: K.L. Eckert, K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly. (eds.) Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Publication No.4: 228-231.

Humphrey, S.L. & R.V. Salm (eds.), 1996. Status of sea turtle conservation in the western Indian Ocean. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 165. v + 162 pp.

IUCN (The World Conservation Union), 1996. A marine turtle conservation strategy and action plan for the western Indian Ocean. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; Nairobi and Washington D.C. 24pp.

IUCN (The World Conservation Union), in press. A marine turtle conservation strategy and action plan for the northern Indian Ocean. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No.3; Washington D.C.

Kent, G., 1980a. The Politics of Pacific Island Fisheries. Westview Press; Boulder, Colorado. ix + 191 pp.

Kent, G., l980b. Transnational corporations in Pacific fishing. Research Monograph No. 10. Transnational Corporations Research Project, University of Sydney. 48pp.

Kent, G., 1989. Overselling fisheries trade: The European Community and the Third World. Unpublished document; University of Hawaii.

Kent, G., 1997. Fisheries, food security, and the poor. Food Policy 22(5): 393-404 

Korten, D.C., 1995. When Corporations Rule the World. Kumarian Press- Bennett Koehler Publishers; West Hartford, Connecticut-San Francisco, California. x + 374pp.

Korten, D.C., 1999. The Post-Corporate World: Life after Capitalism. Kumarian Press Berrett-Koehler Publishers; West Hartford, Connecticut-San Francisco, California. x + 318pp.

Kurlansky, M., 1997. Cod: A bibliography of the fish the changed the world. Walker and Company; New York. 294 pp.

Larkin, P., 1977. An epitaph for maximum sustained yield. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:1-11.

Limpus, C.J., 1985. A proposal for the declaration of the Turtle Islands as an Asean Heritage Park. Report to I.U.C.N. Survival Services Sea Turtle Specialist Group, Philippines Ministry of Natural Resources and Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, Australia.

Limpus, C.J., 1994. Current declines in South East Asian turtle populations. In: B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (compilers). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida, NMFS-SEFSC-341: 89-92.

Limpus, C.J., 1995. Global overview of the status of marine turtles: A 1995 viewpoint. In: K.A. Bjorndal (ed.). 1995. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (revised edition). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.: 605-609.

Ludwig, D., 1993. Environmental sustainability: Magic, science, and religion in natural resource management. Ecological Applications 3: 555-558.

Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn & C. Walters, 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history Science 260:17, 36.

Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherigton & P.E. Lutz, 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival. Pp. 387-409, In The Biology of Sea Turtles. (Eds.) P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick. CRC Press; New York.

Lutz, P.L. & J.A. Musick, (Eds.) 1997. The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, New York, New York. (viii) + 432pp.

Marsh, H., 1999. Bulletproofing science against extremists: Advice for sirenian researchers. Sirenews: Newsletter of the IUCN/SSC Sirenia Specialist Group. 31:1-4

Mazal, C., 1999. OLDEPESCA pass resolution on the ratification of the Inter-Americas Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 85: 28.

McDonnel, M.J. & S.T.A. Pickett (eds.), 1993. Humans as Components of Ecosystems: The Ecology of Subtle Human Effects and Populated Areas. London: Springer-Verlag: xxi + 364pp.

McGoodwin, J.R., 1990. Crisis in the Worldis Fisheries: People, Problems, and Politics. Stanford University Press; Stanford, California. ix + 235.

Meffe, G.K. & S. Viederman, 1995. Combining science and policy in conservation biology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(3): 327-332.

Mitroff, I.I. & W. Bennis. 1993. The Unreality Industry. The Deliberate Manufacturing of Falsehood and What It Is Doing to Our Lives. Oxford University Press; Oxoford. xxv + 218pp.

Nacu, A., R. Trono, J.A. Palma, D. Torres & F. Agas, Jr. (eds.), 1994. Proceedings of the First ASEAN Symposium-Workshop on Marine Turtle Conservation. World Wildlife Fund, Manila, Philippines. vii + 256pp.

Naro-Maciel, E., 1998. The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles: An historical overview. Journal of International Wildlife & Policy. 1(1): 169-178.

Noon, Y.R., I.R. Lubis, R. Ounsted, S. Troeng & A. Abdulla (eds.), 1997. Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia. Jember, East Java, Wetlands International/PHPA/Environment Australia; Bogor, Indonesia. ix+ 197pp.

NRC (National Research Council), 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. xv + 259pp.

Oravetz, C.A., 1999. Reducing incidental catch in fisheries. In: K.L. Eckent, K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly. (eds.) Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Publication No.4: 89-193.

Oruc, A.F. Demirayak & G. Sat, 1997. Trawl fisheries in the eastern Mediterranean and it's impact on sea turtles (TR0010.04) The Conclusive Report. The Society for the Protection of Nature; Istanbul, Turkey. 30pp.

Palma, J.A.M. & R.B. Trono, 1998. Initiatives towards an ASEAN regoinal management regime for marine turtles. In: S. Epperly and J. Braun (compilers) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida: 75-77.

Pandav, B. & B.C. Choudhury, 1999. An update on the mortality of the olive ridley sea turtles in Orissa, Inda. Marine Turtle Newsletter 83: 10-12.

Plotkin, P., 1999. Resolutions of the participants at the 19th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Marine Turtle Newsletter 85: 20-24.

Poyrer, L., 1993. The Ngatik Massacre. History and Identity on a Micronesian Atoll. Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington, D.C. xiii ± 298pp.

Pulliam, HR. 1998. The political education of a biologist: Part II. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(3)499-503.

Quresti, A., 1999. Extraterritorial shrimps, NGOs and the WTO Appellate Body. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 48: 199-206.

Robins, J.B., 1995. Estimated catch and mortality of sea turtles form the east coast otter trawl fishery of Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 74: 157-167.

Sam, C., 1999. World Trade Organization caught in the middle: Are TEDs the only way out? Environmental Law 29: 185-2 10.

Shaffer, G., 1999. International trade-WTO--quantitative restrictions-environmental protection-endangered species-U.S. import ban on shrimp. The American Journal of lnternational Law 93: 507-514.

Simmons, B., 1999. In Search of balance: An analysis of the WTO shrimp/turtle Appellate Body Report. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 24: 413-454.

Silvani, L., M. Gazo & A. Aguilar, 1999. Spanish drifinet fishing and incidental catches in the western Mediterranean. Biological Conservation 90: 79-85.

Somma, A., 1996. Report on the sea turtle negotiations. Marine Turtle Newsletter 75: 16- 17.

Stone, C.D., 1995. What to do about biodiversity: Property rights, public goods, and the Earth's biological riches. Southern California Law Review 68(3): 577-620.

Stone, C.D., 1997. Too many fishing boats, too few fish: Can trade laws trim subsidies and restore the balance of global fisheries. Ecology Law Quarterly 24(3): 505-544.

Talbot, L., 1996. Living resource conservation: An international overview. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, D.C. 56pp.

Trono, R.B. & R.V. Salm. 1999. Regional collaboration. In: K.L. Eckert, K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, and M. Donnelly. (eds.) Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Publication No.4: 224-227.

Utting, P (project co-ordinator). 1995. States of Disarray: The social effects of globalization. United Nations Research Unit for Social Development; Banson; London. 172pp.

Vandermeer, J.H. & I. Perfecto, 1995. Breakfast of Biodiversity: The Truth About Rain Forest Destruction. Institute for Food and Development Policy; Oakland, California. xiii + l82pp.

Wamukoya, G.M. & R.V. Salm (eds.), 1998. Report of the western Indian Ocean turtle excluder device (TED) training workshop. IUCN, Nairobi, Kenya and Washington D.C. 30pp.

Wetherall, J.A., G.A. Balazs, R.A. Tokunaga & M.Y.Y. Yong, 1993. Bycatch of marine turtles in North Pacific high-seas driftnet fisheries and impacts on the stocks In (Eds.) J. Ito et al. INPFC symposium on biology, distribution, and stock assessment of species caught in the high seas driftnet fisheries in the North Pacific Ocean. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin 53(3): 519-538.

Wigan, M., 1998. The Last of the Hunter Gatherers: Fisheries Crisis at Sea. Swan Hill Press; Shrewsbury, England. 270 pp.

Williams, P., P.J. Anninos, P.T. Plotkin & K.L. Salvini (compilers). 1996. Palagic longline fishery-sea turtle interactions. Proceedings of an industry, academic and government experts, and stakeholders workshop held in Silver Spring, Maryland, 24-25 May 1994. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-7. (iv) + 77pp.

Witzell, W.N., 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the longline fleet in the western north Atlantic Ocean 1992-1995. Fisheries Bulletin 97: 200-211.

WTO (World Trade Organisation), 1998. United States - Import prohibition of certain shrimp and shrimp products. AB-1998-4. Report of the Appellate Body. WT/DS58/AB/R. 12 October 1998. (98-3899). Geneva. ii + 77 pp.

Wyneken, J., 1997. 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology & Conservation. Marine Turtle Newsletter 77: 27-31.

1 It is assumed for the present discussion that the maintenance of biological diversity and protection of endangered species not only is justified, but is a responsibility of modem societies. Although there are several recent arguments supporting this assumption (e.g. Heywood et al. 1995, Stone 1995, Baskin 1997, Costanza et al. 1997, Daily 1997), a full discussion of sea turtle conservation is warranted, particularly in regard to values, motivations, and justifications. However, a discussion of this nature is outside the scope of the present paper.

2 The scenario is condensed and simplified from an extensive literature on the biology and natural history of marine turtles (e.g. Lutz and Musick 1997, and references therein).

3 In order for the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles to come into force, at least eight nations must ratify it; as of 1 March 2000, only three states had ratified: Venezuela, Peru, and Brazil. Because it is politically and administratively simpler for governments to sign treaties, than to follow through and ratify them, a total of twelve signatory states does not automatically mean that all twelve countries will ratify.

4U.S. Public Law 101-162, Section 609 provides for U.S. embargoes on wild caught shrimp exported from countries that do not meet the standards set by the U.S. Government in regard to programs for using trawl efficiency devices, known also as 'turtle excluder devices' or 'TEDs' (Howse 1998, WTO 1998, Berger 1999, Quresti 1999, Sam 1999, Shaffer 1999, Simmons 1999, Frazier & Bache in press).

5 The 'true' origin of the IAC has been the stuff of wondrous rumours. One version contends that the text was produced by the U.S. Department of State and passed to Mexican authorities with instructions that they translate it into Spanish and present it as theirs, implying that the treaty is a form of U.S. manipulation and domination of the Third World. U.S. authorities did work with Mexican counterparts to draft a working text of the convention - a customary procedure in diplomatic negotiations. Nevertheless, a similar enterprise was already afoot. Nearly two years before the first inter- governmental meeting to negotiate the treaty, a working group on sea turtle conservation was created within the Latin American Organisation for Fisheries Development (OLDEPESCA): the same organisation that later served as the de facto secretariat during negotiations for the IAC. Moreover, both Venezuelan and Mexican delegations presented proposals at the first meeting in Mexico; negotiators used the home country's version as the basis for negotiations, incorporating certain aspects from the Venezuelan text (Dr Hugo Alsina - former Director of International Activities, SARPA [Fisheries Department, Venezuela] and head of the three Venezuelan IAC delegations, pers. com.). It is worth noting that among the most vocal denigrators of the IAC, who dispute its value because of its presumed defiled origin, are those who actively advance a position antagonistic to that of the treaty: the promotion of international commerce in sea turtles and sea turtle products. Some of these detractors are retained by the world's major importer of sea turtle products today, the Japanese Bekko Association.

6 Perhaps the most extreme example of non-negotiated competition for turtle resources is that of the Ngatik Massacre. In early July 1837, Sidney-born C.H. Hart led the trading cutter Lambton with a crew of some 7 to 18 'renegade European Seamen, with excited passions', towing canoes with another 15 armed Pohnpei islanders to Nagatik Island, Sapwuahfik Atoll. Over a two-day period, the raiders, in order to obtain the islanders' store of tortoise-shell, massacred some 40 to 84 men from Ngatik (resulting in the elimination of every adult male on the island, and the consequent self-destruction of countless women and children survivors). As was custom in Micronesia, the islanders regarded the turtle shell as sacred, and did not consent to having it removed, even through sale or barter. In the end, Hart's booty was 18 to 30 pounds of hawksbill shell, valued at that time at 5 to 6 dollars a pound (Poyer 1993).